Skip to main content

About your Search

20130302
20130310
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
for national defense and other reasons. but now they're loaning them out to local law enforcement and law enforcement's also buying drones directly. so they have high-resolution cameras, heat censors and sophisticated radar on the border protection drones that can help track criminal activity in the united states, just as the c.i.a. uses predators and other drones to spy on militants in pakistan, nuclear sites in iran and other targets around the globe. for decades, u.s. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. this is that sort of open spaces doctrine. i'm not saying it makes it right but the government has been doing it for decades. some of the courts have apparently ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a back yard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws. you know, i don't think i agree with that. if you're swimming in your pool in your back yard, if you're in your hot tub in your back yard, just because we have the technology to be able to see you in your hot tub, does that really mea
. calm down, senator, mr. holder is right. even if he doesn't explain the law very well, the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. i repeat that. the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. what it can do, under the laws of war, is target an enemy combatant, at anywhere, at any time, including on u.s. soil. this includes a u.s. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. the president can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity, government, say, or a terrorist network like al qaeda. that has taken up arms against the united states as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. that does not include hanoi jane. such a conflict exists between the u.s. and al qaeda. so, mr. holder is right. the u.s. could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar awlaki had he continued to live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore in long island in world war ii and were
. there's a legal framework when you read the law and you read, for example, what the attorney general has said among others, there's a very broad legal framework in which you can operate. but the policy framework is and should be much narrower. so i think that is the framework that people should have confidence and being exercised and know that these dispitions are made -- decisions are made very carefully. >> thank you. christina, next. drill down border enforcement. janet napolitano, there's a lot of publicity about the immigrant demainee. you were explaining to me there's a number call issue you face. >> there was a story we released 2,000 detainee because of sequester. that is really not accurate. >> it was not . >> it was not politico -- i won't say who it put it out there. and as in all things, immigration it develops its own mythology. here is the deal. we are constantly, as the secretaries. know, moving people in and out of detention. these are immigrants who illegal immigrants who for one reason or another are just better in detention than under some alternative. with sequester l
and activities of international law and the domestic laws of many other countries. for north korea, these criminal activities are viewed as necessary to maintain the power of the regime without regard for the fact they are corrosive to international law and order. the question is what steps can we take to combat north korea's illicit dvds encounter after its be used to pressure north korea to abandon nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. i heard on the news this morning the agreement has been made extensively with china to punish north korea for its missile launching nuclear tests. i hope china will not do what it's done in the past and agree to sanctions and then just erode the sanctions so the sanctions never took hold. i hope china will finally understand the north korean regime is a threat to stability in that region of the world and because as chairman pointed out, north korea is a rogue state, helping countries like syria try to obtain nuclear weapons to collaborate with iran. i want this committee to know that on this issue, there is not a millimeters worth of diff
. no matter the work we did and the stories we heard. there was stories about how the laws in lebanon, for example would prevent women from obtaining their passport back when they entered to the country. and the employers had taken them away. so i was just curious about your experience and the places you traveled about the intersection between public health and law. >> absolutely. it's diabolical. and i'm glad that congress reauthorize the violence against women act and within that was the trafficking victims protection act comp helps to -- which helps to get -- double standards within american law. too often we victimize the victim. in term of internationally, that's why i referenced that none of these problems exist in isolation and the solutions are also holistic. when, you know, health is the building block of all sustainability. when a girl is healthy, she can go to school. she can stay in school. when she has her period and there is a will treen -- toilet and what she needs for the high gene, she can stay in school. for every year a girl stays in school, she has her first child
to the finest law school in boston and has been with the company for many, many years. mitch glazier is executive vice president and has served on the senate judiciary committee and also in the house and intellectual property issues back in the 90s. to his right is brent olson from at&t. great runner. his locker at the federal communications commission. and if they make a point for the last three speakers on the table, certainly not least are the advisory board and were going to start to consult on this project and starting at the beginning is jerry berman, chaired the congressional internet caucus, so he is my boss. jerry was founder person or democracy intact elegy. before that was director at the frontier foundation and before that was chief counsel for the aclu. there's a lot of privacy issues and property issues including the electronic communications act of 1986. to his right as the executive or a public knowledge on intellectual property issues and internet freedom issues for many years. to her right is jules polonetsky, cochair of the future of privacy forum. jules before tha
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6